Angels & Demons

Brown’s books are undemanding and intellectually shallow, but bloody good page-turners, ideal to relax in summer by the sea. With the films it’s worse because they drag quite a bit, are too talkative and the lack of logic that the books can hide between the lines (or have at least plenty of space to explain in some way) floats to the surface, making it almost impossible to ignore. Angels and Demons suffers from the same problems as The Da Vinci Code, though perhaps it’s more tense. The result, however, is still a not very interesting thriller that might surprise a few people with a couple of rather brutal scenes, but that will bore most due to its chaste asexuality and correctness. 6/10 (2009-06-29)

After the first hour, Angels & Demons becomes repetitive and the audience loses interest in the detective storyline, no matter how dynamic it may be. More ideas wouldn’t be unwelcome. The impressive climax, however, salvages a lot. And the work with the actors (and their hairstyles) is definitely better than in The Da Vinci Code. What fascinates me the most about this “saga” is that for all its straight-facedness, first-class filmmaking team, solid actors and controversial topics, it is unable to be anything but a simple-minded blockbuster for the masses. The masses that are unaware that 50% of their experience is provided by a guy named Hans Zimmer. (2009-05-13)

Robert is searching for life, discreetly flirting, and making enemies wherever he can. Again. But this time, he struggles with a few things regarding The Code. Most notably, he loudly screams a few clichés of the genre. The main characters play for life-saving minutes, but nevertheless, around every corner, there is an explanation for random symbolic curiosities. And most importantly, the syndrome of the second installment arrives in its strongest form. Once again, a damaged body, an attractive and randomly found partner, and once again, a reveal that slightly undermines the impact of previous twists. However, I still have to give it a better score of 70%, whether it's because with another actor, Langdon would become just a pawn, which Tom Hanks brilliantly prevents, or because Ewan McGregor celebrates a phenomenal comeback. But mainly because I would not have guessed those two hours to be even halfway through, as everything swiftly zooms by, the plot never pauses for a moment, and the box of the archaeological-adventure film is filled to the maximum. (2009-05-20)

Surprisingly better and more compact than the first part. Ron Howard finally understood that a cute Audrey Tautou and dodgy action scenes won't improve the story better and started relying on other things. For example, an agile script that piles one puzzle on top of another with fairly entertaining and dynamic sequences, and a fantastic (again) Hans Zimmer, who delivers uncompromising bite to the entire piece. He might have composed the same thing for the eighteenth time, but it still sounds beautiful. It sounds unbelievable, even in those few miniature action passages, Howard surprisingly toughened up. It's still a wimpy, predictable, and conflict-free Hollywood shitshow, but at least this was bearable. (2009-10-04)

Too bad I can't give it 2.5 stars ... I know, 5 is rounded up, but this movie, I just can't even see the 3 stars, because I was bored for two hours and the remaining 28 minutes kept me entertained with the soundtrack and some acting here and there. I'll put it simply – this movie bored me. I slowly feel sorry for Ewan that he was in it, but that's how people have to make a living :-D (2009-05-23)